AaronJ

I was just referring to the weakness of the oft touted "out of scope" explination. It is valid sometimes but often there is a specific reason why an answer choice as wrong< "Out of scope" becomes a crutch-e.g. this person has no explination for why the correct answer is wrong exept "out of scope". There is no arguement there.

what's the answer..I think its C, everything else is either out of scope, or too extreme.

C. For restaurants, the identification of regular, average, and infrequent customers generally involves recording the names, addresses, and menu selections of at least some customers.

My explanation for why C is wrong: How does this really affect the conclusion? We already have a premise that states that other restaurants don't do this at all, and it leaves the door open for other methods. Don't choose this one.. please?

Kaplan's explanation for why it's wrong: (C) fails to address the conclusion at all by only focusing on the evidence.

You can find reasons why the other choices (except E) are also wrong here.

smart

This is a new version!!I think the answer is E.Premise: Piza--the only restaurant that record names,,Conclusion: piz --utilize DM more effectively.Combine them together: the only restaurant that record names,, "always" utilize DM more effectively. Thus, Piza utilize DM more effectively.